2001: A Space Odyssey HD (1 Viewer)

[PerryD]

I ordered 2001 from Warner a couple months back along with the Elvis movies and Blade Runner. Still waiting for something to show up.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

No film of this vintage has ever looked so good on video. Simply magnificent. I got the HD-DVD, but I'm sure the Blu-Ray looks equally great.

I was reading logos I'd never noticed before - like the GE Whirlpool logo over the oven the stewardess uses to heat the meals near the beginning. I didn't try, but I have the feeling I might almost have been able to read the zero-G toilet instructions (The full text of that was actually included in Criterion's old CAV laserdisc set, for the curious). Maybe I'm exaggerating, but that's how clear it looked.

Also had a chance to give the Clockwork Orange disc a brief spin through a few scenes. The commentary with McDowell and the film historian seems terrific so far, full of great anecdotes (Like the fact that actress Adrienne Cori told McDowell before they shot the infamous 'Singing in the Rain' assault, "You're about to find out that I'm a real redhead."). The image isn't as sharp as 2001, but it still looks great.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[DaViD Boulet]

BD for me. and were I format neutral, this would be the reason why:


I just checked out the Spiderman trilogy and the third film has both Dolby TrueHD and PCM audio. I was SHOCKED to find that the PCM audio not only sounded better, but that the difference was obvious.

The TrueHD track was softer in level (yes, I level-matched to compare) and lacked the robust and nuanced fidelity of the PCM.... which in *theory* it was supposed to emulate 100% after decoding.

Dialog Normalization processing reduces volume in the digital domain after the Dolby stream is decoded... effectively re-writing every bit value and potentially having an affect on fidelity in the process. I'm assuming that DN was the source of the difference here given the lower audio level of the Dolby TrueHD track in comparison to the PCM (spiderman 3).

PCM avoids the risk of problems like this. If the studios could learn to master TrueHD without DN (which rewrites all the data points so you can't claim bit-for-bit accuracy prior to d/a conversion), I'd be fine. Until they figure this out, PCM for me!

 

[RobertR]

I'd be more impressed if you did a true, proper double-blind comparison, with levels matched to within .1 dB (which I very much doubt you did). The comparisons you've mentioned doing with your wife do not match the requisite rigorusness. Also, DN is defeatable with quite a number of playback devices.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

DVD Empire also still has the Blu-ray of "2001" listed as: "ON ORDER Ships when stock arrives."

Edit: Additionally - "Twilight Zone: The Movie" (Blu-ray) was delayed for 1 week (from Amazon.com), when it was released two weeks ago.

Paul

 

[DaViD Boulet]

get the disc and do a double-blind test yourself if you'd like better confirmation.

Dialog Normalization is NOT DEFEATABLE in any consumer gear bearing the Dolby Digital Logo: the Dolby spec requires that the flag be honored without defeat. This is confirmed by Dressler at Dolby. If you've found gear that permits the DN processing to be defeated, it's operating out of spec (a few early receivers allowed it to be defeated and then promptly removed this user-selection once Dolby heard about the issue).

Please don't antagonize me when I'm just reporting the sound that I'm hearing doing an evaluation. I've explained my methods. Do a better evalutation if you'd like and report back what you hear and I'll do you the courtesy of respecting your subjective impression of the sound, the same courtesy I expect from you.

-dave

p.s. I've never been married.

 

[Bleddyn Williams]

Since when did questioning anything become antagonizing?

Love the appearance of the Mystery Wife tho - LOL!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

sorry if I overreacted. There's the usual history. In any case, I'm reporting what I hear and how I heard it. Anyone is welcome to comment on how they might have done it better... and even more welcome to go ahead and do the comparison themselves (the new Spiderman 3 BD coming out). However, let's not state false things to skew an argument (ie, DN is not defeatable in the Dolby spec so defeating it upon playback is not a real-world option for listeners).

 

[RobertR]

Oops, my mistake. But it doesn’t change the fact that you’ve never described yourself participating in a properly rigorous DB test, which calls into question the objective validity of your results.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Robert,

I'll happily take part in a double blind test if someone is willing to assist with the logistical issues. Obviously, one guy reviewing a Blu-ray Disc in his home theater with only one Blu-ray player and screener copy has unavoidable limitations. Had I two discs, two players, and a level level-matching calibration device on hand, it would have been possible with the help of a friend to switch sources. Just having one player and one screener copy, I did the best I could. Are you suggesting that in the absence of such a true double-blind test, which cannot be adequately performed in the majority of software-review circumstances, that no meaningful evaluation of audio qualtiy can be obtained?


Fascinating. Technically those devices are opperating out-of-spec though I'm thrilled to hear that they do indeed offer a bypass. They are certainly not representative of audio gear (or even high-end auido gear) in general however. Is the support of the dialog normalization defeatabilty documented in the manual etc. or is it an undocumented feature? I'm curious what Dolby would have to say. I might ask Roger Dressler and find out!

 

[RobertR]

Dave,

I'm not sure about the Denon or the Theta, but it's in the TheaterTek manual:

http://www.theatertek.com/manual.pdf

 

[Jack Briggs]

I would love also to hear from good viewers/members any comparisons between the two formats for this transfer. Having held off jumping into either format, these new releases of Mr. Kubrick's films are forcing me to decide one way or the other.

And since HD DVD has a new lease on life thanks to Paramount, I am still perplexed.

Walter Kittel's near-emotional response intrigued me.

At any rate, if anyone can offer a comparison of the HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc renderings, it might force me to decide on a format myself.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I believe that both discs use the same video encode, so visually they should be identical.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

The Theta has the option of the DN being preformed in an analog domain or a digital domain. But you can't actually turn it off. I'm assuming that the analog domain would be preferred as there is no potential for the data to be changed, as unlikely as it might be for that change to be audible.

Doug

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Jack,

these differences aren't really differences between formats, so much as implimentations. WB uses the same video file for both HD DVD and BD. They *can* chose to use the same audio on each as well, though in this case they went with PCM on the BD and DolbyTrueHD on the HD DVD. And even if PCM turned out to sound better in this case than TrueHD (not suggesting that it does since I haven't heard it), I don't recommend picking formats or judging one over the other based on a studio's particular mastering choices on a particular title. If anyone hasn't yet picked sides and taken the plunge, I'd suggest waiting until Christmas when more affordable (and better) BD hardware options will be available to choose from (unless one is certain one is going to purchase HD DVD now anyway).

Robert,

thanks for the heads up with that theatertek configuration. That's very interesting indeed. Also curious that their explanation of DN is erroneous... they mention that dialogue may sometimes sound too soft and that DN keeps it all the same. Actually, DN *reduces* audio amplitude on-the-fly during playback, so the issue is really the other way around (that sometimes a movie might have dialogue that sounds louder than another film and DN *reduces* the level to match a lower base-line). Small quibble but I just had to point out the error.

I'm hopeful that at some point a high-end receiver might allow a similar defeat in which case I'd let my receiver do the advanced audio decoding and defeat DN to avoid the additional processing from digital-attenuation.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I've definitely owned more copies of 2001 than of any other film... offhand:

1. MGM/UA 25th Anniversary Letterboxed VHS
2. Italian PAL pan&scan/dubbed version (a friend went on a trip to Italy, new it was my favorite, and brought it back just for kicks...it came with a booklet with an essay in Italian about the film, and on the bibliography page, I noticed that one of the resources cited was a website I created analyzing the film for a high school class I had once taken!)
3. MGM original DVD (1998?)
4. WB 2000 Remaster
5. WB 2000 Remaster (Limited Edition packaged with soundtrack; same disc as the regular version)
6. CBS/FOX early 80s VHS (saw it on ebay for cheap and had to get it for nostalgic value since it was the very first incarnation of the film I ever saw)
7. 2007 Special Edition

I can't say that I've seen the film on as glorious a screen as you did (unfortunately), but besides that brand new 35mm print I saw at the American Museum of the Moving Image for their Kubrick retrospective (they also showed "Fear and Desire" unannounced at a later date; unfortunately I didn't find out until it was too late!), I saw it four times in 70mm during the 2001/2002 re-release. Now that was incredible. I'm envious of the friends I dragged along with me who were only seeing it for the first time.

I always swear I'm never going to watch it on TV again, and yet I end up doing just that...it's too good of a movie. And despite the limitations of 2001 on TV (be it VHS, DVD, or hi-def), I still find something new in it with each viewing. I imagine I'm probably going to live another 50 or so years; I can't imagine I'll see a movie that could replace this one as my favorite. Someone once asked me what "2001" was about because they had not seen or heard of it; all I could think to respond was, "Everything."

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Interesting. Yes, that's the rationale for providing an analog-domain option (doesn't re-process the entire digital waveform with new datapoints). Some high-end D/A converters that had HDCD decoding also employed analog-domain attenuation for the required db reduction of non-HDCD playback for the same reason.

If the difference I heard between the PCM and TrueHD tracks on Spiderman 3 are an indication of what (minor, but audible compromise) digital-domain DN processing can do, then I'd be very interested to have a product that can do analog-domain DN or bypass it entirely. Anyone interested in a true double-blind AB DN test let's get together and plan the experiment.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I absolutely abhore 2001. Never liked it. For its time
I am sure it was utter brilliance. For me, it's the ultimate snoozefest.

I did purchase it on HD-DVD because...well...I'm a collector and
it's considered a classic.

I just popped it in to look at various scenes, and I must say that
the quality on this HD release is exceptional at 1080p. The opening
moments showing morning of The Dawn of Man are simply gorgeous
with its deep, rich black levels that are through the roof!

The scenes aboard the space shuttle are also gorgeous. The whites
of the ships exterior come off bleach clean. There are a few artifacts
that show from the original elements, but otherwise, this is a terrific
release!

 

[Mike Williams]

Ronald, I've always been afraid to confess this out of fear of being ridiculed to the point of skipping town, catching a barge to some overseas fishing village and restarting life in complete anonymity, but until two years ago, I was never ONCE able to completely sit through an entire viewing of 2001. No matter how hard I tried, no matter how much I wanted to see it, no matter how much I bowed to the accepted brilliance of the film, I simply could not keep my eyes open long enough to view the entire movie. I think it has a stark beauty to it, one I'm looking forward to seeing again on Blu-Ray. I appreciate the film, but it is one of -- if not THE most boring film I've ever slept through. That said, I have every intention of getting it on Blu-Ray this week.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Jack,

Pretty much 'what David said' with regards to picking formats. One title (unless it was a must have that was exclusive to one format or the other) is probably not an ideal basis for choosing formats. As already mentioned, the video encode should be identical. For myself there are simply too many titles in each camp that held my interest to limit myself to one or the other format. (I continue to be impressed by offerings in both formats.)

Regarding my near-emotional reaction you'd better believe it! It was amazing watching this title last night in HD. I never had the good fortune of seeing this film theatrically, so this is easily the best viewing of the film that I've ever experienced. Just terrific.

- Walter.